The defense attorney for a Carmel Valley man accused of killing his neighbors argued Friday the judge should deny trial access to “Dateline NBC” cameras because of the way national media attention could affect jurors, witnesses and the attorney”s own health.

Thomas Nolan of Palo Alto, who is defending John Kenney in the slayings of Mel and Elizabeth Grimes, said he has tried many high-profile cases and the stress of the media attention has sickened him.

When he learned that “Dateline NBC” had asked to place three gavel-to-gavel cameras in the courtroom during Kenney”s trial, Nolan said, “within five minutes my chest closed up and I was down for the count with the flu.”

Soon to be 63, Nolan said he has health issues and is concerned the added stress would leave him unable to complete the trial in the six to eight weeks it is now estimated to run.

He questioned the First Amendment rights of “Dateline,” saying it is not a news outlet but an entertainment program that is known to assist law enforcement with sting operations.

Nolan also said statistics and studies have shown that media presence negatively affects witnesses and jurors and leads to a higher conviction rate.

Prosecutor Ann Hill joined in Nolan”s objections on behalf of the victims” families.

“They do not want this,” she said. “They DO NOT WANT this.”

The Herald renewed its previously granted permission for still cameras in the courtroom.

Kenney is accused of gunning down his Hitchcock Canyon Road neighbors over a long-running property dispute on Jan. 29, 2007. The morning of the shootings, according to testimony, Kenney had a large boulder placed on the contested sliver of land.

Mel Grimes, a well-known local defense attorney, was attempting to smash the rock with a sledgehammer, and Elizabeth Grimes was near him, talking to a 911 dispatcher, when they were shot to death.

Kenney maintains he acted in self-defense. Jury selection is set to begin May 6.

If the court allows television cameras during the trial, Hill said, it should provide a monitor, at the court”s expense, to ensure that camera operators do not violate orders against filming witnesses or jurors.

“Dateline” producer Luz Villarreal said her report would run after the trial is concluded and she assured Judge Stephen Sillman her crew would abide by his order. She also offered to scale back her request for three cameras controlled by remote from outside the courtroom.

But she stressed that “Dateline” and other media outlets have a right to cover the trial. Given her need for audio and video footage, she said, if cameras were barred from the courtroom, she would be forced to video the attorneys and Kenney outside, something both Hill and Nolan objected to.

Sillman, who typically has allowed television and newspaper cameras in the courtroom, said he would rule on the matter March 21.

The issue was one of three the court took up involving media coverage on Friday. Nolan indicated that he had not yet filed an expected change-of-venue motion because KSBW hadn”t provided past news broadcasts he”s subpoenaed.

The attorney said he”d been told by the station it did not retain news broadcasts for longer than a week, a contention Nolan said he doubted.

Sillman asked KSBW to have representatives present at the March 21 hearing to explain why they cannot provide the newscasts.

On another issue, Hill told the court she wanted to subpoena reporters from The Herald and the Salinas Californian to refute Nolan”s claim that some of the evidence seized from Kenney”s house is confidential because of attorney-client privilege.

Key among that evidence is a letter to Kenney from an attorney at the Monterey law firm Fenton & Keller reportedly advising Kenney to erect a barrier on the disputed property.

In February 2007, the Herald reported an interview with former Kenney attorney Nick Cvietkovich, who said Kenney had discussed the letter with Sheriff Mike Kanalakis.

Hill asserted that Kenney had waived his attorney-client privilege by sharing the letter with Kanalakis. Sillman said Friday that testimony by the reporters was not necessary and agreed with Hill that the letter was not privileged.